Is JCIO fit for purpose?
JCIO stands for Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. It took over the responsibilities of the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) on the 1st October 2013. It also sits within the Royal Courts of Justice, in London, where most of the Judges sitting in the same court are refused to be investigated by JCIO.
Their address and contact details:
Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office
81-82 Queens Building
Royal Courts of Justice Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Tel 0207 073 4723
The complaint time limit changed on 1st October 2013 from 1 year to 3 months following significant complaints raised against senior Judges sitting within the Royal Courts of Justice.
You will find the below description about JCIO on their website:
“The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) (formerly the Office for Judicial Complaints) supports the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in their joint responsibility for judicial discipline. It seeks to ensure that all judicial disciplinary issues are dealt with consistently, fairly and efficiently.
The JCIO operates in accordance with the Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2014 and the supporting rules. It can only deal with complaints about a judicial office-holder’s personal conduct – it cannot deal with complaints about judicial decisions or about case management.”
While a lot of data is put out there by JCIO to show that they are performing disciplinary actions against the judiciaries in accordance with their requirements to investigate the judiciary, the bottom line is that JCIO takes action mostly against the Magistrates, who are described as:
“Magistrates (also known as justices of the peace) are 21,500 volunteer judicial office holders who serve in magistrates’ courts throughout England and Wales.
Magistrates can be appointed from the age of 18 and retire at 70. Magistrates do not require legal training or qualifications. Candidates must demonstrate six ‘key qualities’ – Good Character; Commitment and Reliability; Social Awareness; Sound Judgement; Understanding and Communication; Maturity and Sound Temperament. Once appointed, magistrates undertake mandatory training and are always supported in court by a trained legal advisor to guide them on points of law and procedure.”
You can find the list of who they investigated in 2015 here. (Note that JP stands for Magistrates.)
While a complaint was raised in May 2013 (one year limit to complain still in force) against Eleanor King J (as she was in 2012 a judge in High Court at RCJ) for her bahaviour and failing to uphold her judicial position, JCIO refused to investigate. They instead changed the complaint time frame from one year to three months.
Again in 2014 and after we find out about Eleanor King J’s dyslexia, JCIO again refused to investigate and concluded that the complaint was out of time. She was instead promoted to the Court of Appeal by Chris Grayling, Lord Chancellor at the time, as a Lady Justice of Appeals. Since autumn 2014, Lady Justice Eleanor King has the benefit to produce routine Judgments given that her dyslexia affects her reading and writing skills. She welcomes legal professionals who she can have a meeting with before the hearing and then can be guided in court with what she needs to say and do, without any independent judicial input as she is unable to do so due to her disability – dyslexia.
[In the Vlad case, this judge admitted at the start of the proceedings: “Mr Colbey (Richard Colbey with Lamb Chambers), I think you asked for me to come into court to update me.” There was no any known meeting by the Wife between this Judge and the Husband’s barrister, or any other discussions between the parties before the hearing scheduled for one day full hearing at the first appeal level. This dyslexic Judge showed up half a day late for the hearing and then complaint that she read nothing and did not know where the documents were and what she needed to decide. She called the grounds of appeal as required to be filed separately from the hearing bundles, on Charles J’s order, as “random excess“.]
JCIO receive complains almost on a daily basis about Lady Justice Eleanor King’s behaviour in court, yet she still stands strong as a dyslexic Lady Justice of Appeal. We have blogged today about her dyslexia and the dangers the public are facing with this Judge making routine Judgments instead of deciding cases on a case by case basis. Read our blog here or follow this link:
This is another Court of Appeal Judge much complaint about as he discriminates against litigants in person. He is a third degree judge (barely passed the law courses) who keeps his judicial position due to his Church connections and social events where his wife pretends to be of Royal decent. He is a true follower of his colleagues without any ability to stand on his own and think independently.
JCIO refused upfront to investigate complaints raised against him.
Currently he holds three jobs (contrary to the Ministry of Justice policy for employment of full time salaried judges):
- Lord Justice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal, Royal Courts of Justice
- Chancellor of the Diocese of Exeter: Judge for the Diocese in matters of church law heard in a Consistory Court. Click here.
- Bishop’s legal advisor. (Click here.)
A very dedicated member of the social and member club only – Garrick Club, where reading drama and setting up cases against litigants in person with his colleagues such as Lord Justice Tomlinson and Lord Wilson (former Lord Justice of Appeal until 2011 and when McFarlane replaced Wilson as Lord Wilson moved to the Supreme Court) take priority over proper judicial work for matters filed and issued by the Court of Appeal.
Highly discriminatory Judge who was much criticised by the media for giving too much credit to legal professionals:
“The judge who believes that lawyers always tell the truth” (The Telegraph, 29 August 2015″)
Both Lady Justice Eleanor King and Lord Justice Andrew McFaralne are Supervising Judges for family matters brought on appeal in the Court of Appeal.
Shockingly disturbing but justifiable why justice cannot be achieved even on appeal!
A dyslexic Judge and an unable Judge must not be made to uphold the “law of the land” as they CANNOT due to their individual limitations!